The polymeric porous three-dimensional structures are known [1, 2].
The porous three-dimensional structure of polytetrafluoroethylene [3] is known, made as a three-dimensional body and chosen as a nearest prior art reference for both the first and the second versions of the claimed structure.
The deficiencies of the known porous three-dimensional structure are the insufficient ingrowth ability of soft tissues, the absence of a barrier for deposition thereon and penetration of living tissue cells, in particular microorganisms, therein.
The a nearest prior art reference to the claimed dental implant is the implant, described in [4], comprising an abutment for formation of a dental prosthesis and a surface being in contact with the osseous tissue, having a biologically compatible metal porous zone for the osseous tissue ingrowth and a head for the gingival soft tissue ingrowth in the form of a porous three-dimensional structure of polytetrafluoroethylene positioned between the abutment of the dental prosthesis and the biologically compatible metal porous zone.
The deficiency of the known implant is the insufficient ingrowth ability of the gingival tissue as well as the insufficient protection against penetration of microorganisms into the area of osseo-to-porous metal area contact surface, which is the cause of a long-term engraftment of the implant and, in some cases, of rejection thereof.
The closest to the claimed vascular implant is the implant, described in [5]; it is made of GORATEKS-type porous polytetrafluoroethylene in the form of a tubular body of a given diameter.
However, as the company-applicant (and also the manufacturer of GORATEKS material) admits, the known vascular implants provoke deposition of the blood cells and formation of thrombi.
The a nearest prior art reference to the claimed implant is a tissue implant for the substitution plasty of soft tissues (anterior abdominal wall of the recipient) made of a mono-component polytetrafluoroethylene film with a magnified diameter of micro-perforations up to 50-70 μm and with no middle nonporous layer, described in [6]; it has advantages over the bicomponent implants having the micro-perforations sized from 5 to 50 μm due to the optimized integration into the tissues.
The deficiency of the known tissue implant is the insufficient permeability for blood elements and soft tissue cells, resulting in a slow engraftment thereof.